Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

[benchwarmer]

...you should be picking some actual scientific data ...

Can you give one example of such data, with your own words shortly, preferably the one that you think is the best?

You and readers have already been given plenty of scientific articles to either look at or ignore....

And how you think they are good scientific data for evolution, I never know.

Correct, you likely will 'never know'. You won't engage with the actual theory or the actual science and prefer to use opinions, faith, and incredulity. We can't force you to do anything, but perhaps think about how persuasive you are being in this debate. Or maybe you aren't here to try to persuade anyone?

[Clownboat]

Your explanation (the Bible) is not authoritative....

but you are?

That would depend on what explanation of mine you are questioning. Feel free to question any claim I make.

Can you show us an examples of the Super Evolution that would be required in order to get us from 2 beetles on a boat to the more than 350,000 species we now observe? That would be a good place to start I would think.

Can I get an image of those 350,000 beetles?

What an odd way to admit that you cannot provide examples for the kind of super evolution to get us from the ark to all the insects and animals we now see on the planet.

I don't believe that you would take the time to view 350,000 pictures. You demonstrate an unwillingness to even learn what evolution actually is. Therefore, this is what you get:
"Numbers of species. Beetles (Order Coleoptera) are known to include some 350,000 described species."
https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/be ... axonomists.

I don't think there needed to be many beetles in the ark, because many if not all of them could survive underground and for example in egg or larva state.

I'm sorry, but most beetles live on land in reality.
"The female beetle, depending on the species, will lay hundreds of small white or yellow eggs. The eggs can be deposited in decaying leaves, rotten wood and even animal feces. Some beetles keep their eggs inside and give birth to live larvae."

This leads to question, why did the evolution, or as it was used to be called, mother earth, give the 4 states of development for beetles?

Evolution was never known as mother earth. What an odd thing to say.
There is no 'why' (no intelligent reasoning/evaluating going on) to evolution, but to answer your questions, because it didn't prevent future generations and quite likely, better allowed for future generations.

You shouldn't be anthropomorphic about evolution like you are your preferred god concept.
Calling evolution 'Mother Earth' or asking 'why' evolution did something is to fail to understand that which you comment on.

[1213]

Correct, you likely will 'never know'. You won't engage with the actual theory or the actual science and prefer to use opinions, faith, and incredulity. We can't force you to do anything, but perhaps think about how persuasive you are being in this debate. Or maybe you aren't here to try to persuade anyone?

Even if I would read everything about evolution, it would not tell why you believe the evidence is good for it. All evidence that I know for it, is very poor.

[benchwarmer]

Even if I would read everything about evolution, it would not tell why you believe the evidence is good for it. All evidence that I know for it, is very poor.

Just curious, what evidence do you actually know about? Maybe a link to a peer reviewed article on evolutionary biology that you don't agree with and why would be a fantastic start. So far it doesn't seem you've engaged with any of the actual evidence. I already pointed to some places to start earlier in the thread where you could find all sorts of science to engage with.

Note that you are in the Science and Religion section where understanding (or at least engaging with) the actual science is a baseline. So far you haven't even shown you understand the actual theory you are claiming there is no good evidence for. Of course there is likely not good evidence for a theory that isn't the one in question. i.e. if all you are doing is using a typical strawman of the actual theory, it's quite expected you won't find any good evidence for it. That's usually why creationists create these strawman arguments to attack.

[The Barbarian]

...you should be picking some actual scientific data ...

Can you give one example of such data, with your own words shortly, preferably the one that you think is the best?

You and readers have already been given plenty of scientific articles to either look at or ignore....

And how you think they are good scientific data for evolution, I never know.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:
"Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

[1213]

...
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:
"Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

That sounds like wishful thinking.

[The Barbarian]

...
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:
"Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

That sounds like wishful thinking.

Dr. Wise wishes it weren't true. He's just too honest to hide the fact. Dr. Wise is a paleontologist, and he is well aware of the evidence. He suggests that there might be a reasonable creationist explanation for the evidence, but he admits that currently there is no such thing.

[Difflugia]

Dr. Wise wishes it weren't true. He's just too honest to hide the fact.

It's worth reading his testimony in the book In Six Days:

As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

What's funny is that the editor of the website felt the need to blunt Dr. Wise's sharp edge a bit, even though it's not in the print book:

[Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith.]

[1213]

...
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:
"Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

That sounds like wishful thinking.

Dr. Wise wishes it weren't true. He's just too honest to hide the fact. Dr. Wise is a paleontologist, and he is well aware of the evidence. He suggests that there might be a reasonable creationist explanation for the evidence, but he admits that currently there is no such thing.

Please correct me if I am wrong, you mean with whale series for example this?

[The Barbarian]

...
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:
"Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

That sounds like wishful thinking.

Dr. Wise wishes it weren't true. He's just too honest to hide the fact. Dr. Wise is a paleontologist, and he is well aware of the evidence. He suggests that there might be a reasonable creationist explanation for the evidence, but he admits that currently there is no such thing.

Please correct me if I am wrong, you mean with whale series for example this?

Just a few of many. Would you like to learn why your fellow YE creationist admits that the series of transitional whales is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory?"